As he skates along the edge of a federal investigation of his Office of Economic Development, EB-5 visa investor program, and failed agricultural projects, former governor and Republican Senate candidate Marion Michael Rounds is steering clear of public debates. In November, he skipped four free-fire public debates where he might have faced questions about what he knew and when he knew it (not to mention where his squeaky insurance-salesman's pitch would have sounded a bit comical next to retired Marine/cop Rep. Stace Nelson's impressive baritone).
Rounds tells David Montgomery he plans to avoid debates until at least April. Knowing his debate dodges look bad, Rounds tries to construct a new reality in his favor, a reality in which skipping debates is cool and candidates who deign to face each other and the public are lazy chatterbugs:
Rounds said his schedule of meet-and-greets, local Republican Party dinners and fundraising is too busy for debates now — and he suggested his rivals might have time to debate because they’re not working as hard.
“If the other candidates aren’t busy ... if they’re not out trying to establish those types of direct contacts with the public, maybe they’ve got the time to sit around with other candidates and visit,” Rounds said. “I’ve got plenty of opportunity to do that as we get closer to the election” [David Montgomery, "GOP Senate Challengers Want Rounds at Debates," that Sioux Falls paper, 2013.12.30].
Wow: that kind of insult might even get mild-mannered challenger Sen. Larry Rhoden to start throwing punches:
“We’re all out working,” Rhoden said. “I think (debates) are a key component in a campaign, to allow the voters to listen to the candidates and discern for themselves who they believe best represents their views and who’s best qualified to go to Washington” [Montgomery, 2013.11.30].
Come on, Larry! You can play tougher than that! Rounds is wrong on multiple levels:
- Participating in a debate is as much work as attending any of the types of events Rounds is talking about.
- Debates are at least as legitimate a form of direct contact with the public as the things Rounds says he's doing. It's more direct and open than fundraising, in which Rounds spends inordinate amounts of time out of the South Dakota spotlight speaking with outside big-money interests who will demand his fealty more than the South Dakota voters to whom Nelson, Bosworth, and Rhoden are presenting themselves for questioning.
- Saying that debates are just sitting around and visiting shows what Rounds thinks debates are about. Rounds apparently feels that debates are wastes of time during which he plans to spout empty talking points while fidgeting in his chair, eager to get back to talking to rich people instead of answering all these reporters' and commoners' questions.
So keep at it, you lazy bums—er, Republican challengers. You have at least four more months where you can own the stage, make your points, and let Cardboard Mike speak for himself.
Mike won the 2002 primary by doing nothing but standing up when the dust cleared. All the focus was on Barnett and Kirby. Maybe he thinks all he has to do is nothing again.
It's all he did as governor: The Chauncey Gardiner approach.
Chance the Gardener: "I like to watch."
Disappointed in Montegomery's reporting on this. What happened to the cutting edge reporter from the RCJ? Anybody can type he said she said. How is Rounds not being up to his eyes in scandal right now relevant to him avoiding unscripted public debates? Is the Argus afraid Rounds will boycott them with advertising? Do they realize that if they give him the cake walk they are setting out, he doesn't have to dip into his millions of special interest monies?
Aint no use complainin'. Mike Rounds doesn't have to be an act in this three-ringed circus. He's content to be the ringmaster. He told me personally that he'll provide a tiny little car for these three to take to debates.
I'm not a Stace Nelson supporter but I'd pay real money for Rounds to say that to Stace's face!
"Ringmaster." Lol. How about "National Liability." Now that has a real ring to it.
Mr. Rhoden is pretty mainstream conservative and would never wear those giant clown shoes or a red rubber ball on his nose. But Mr. Nelson and Dr. Bos, they'd make a great show.
Mainstream conservatives don't support and vote for liberal pro-choice Democrats for 21 years and have an election year conversion and then claim to be lifelong conservative pro-life Reagan Republicans: https://madvilletimes.com/2013/10/rhoden-registered-democrat-for-20-years-say-three-hail-ronnies-and-carry-on/
Dishonest politicians do those type of things.
Mr. Pro-Illegal Immigration isn't exactly going to get a boost from Benda-gate, Grudz.
The South Dakota Business Alliance conference that Rounds and Rhoden skipped were not advertised as debates. The meeting provided a platform for Senatorial candidates to state their positions on Indian affairs.
Rounds or Rhoden probably would not have been challenged on their points of interest or on the GOED/EB5 scandal, that was not the forum, it was a presentation.
These opportunities are about their public exposure and dismissing them gives the perception of evasion or "not caring" about Native American issues in this state.
"don't support and vote for liberal pro-choice Democrats for 21 years"; since you have a crystal ball and KNOW who someone voted for AND supported, can you tell me when I'm winning the lottery? Thanks!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/27/human-bondage-hits-us-heartland/?page=all
State Senator Larry Rhoden killed in committee, as Chair, and voted against SDGOP Platform 5.18:
"South Dakota Republicans hold that our government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that the exploitation of illegal aliens is an unqualified evil and the antithesis of freedom.
We further hold that it is the explicit sworn duty of South Dakota's state and federal elected officials to take all legal actions available to protect South Dakotans from the growing problems of illegal immigration."
Bree: you know i'm crazy...right?
State Senator Larry Rhoden opposed 2012's SB-155 to prohibit the employment of unauthorized aliens.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2008/February/08_crt_139.html
http://huroncountyview.mihomepaper.com/news/2013-02-14/Front_Page/Several_illegal_immigrants_arrested_in_Feb.html
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110513/NEWS/105130332/
Insaner than most, Larry. Insaner than most.
Don't be so hard on yourself Kurtz. You're getting much better. Lol.
It's when you're talking about "libertarian kochtupus christofascists" that my eyes especially start to glaze over.
so, at $500,000 per green card $10 million starts to add up?
i have never used the phrase 'libertarian kochtupus christofascists' until now.
Clearly Mr. Rhoden has a the majority of Nelson supporters, perhaps a super-majority of 5 or 6, very worried.
Roger, my apologies for calling it a debate. I think some of the candidates get confused about which is which. But you make clear that the point stands, perhaps even stronger: Rounds would not have faced a barrage of questions, but he would have had a chance to talk with more South Dakotans, folks who are every bit as important and to whom he would have as much duty as any of the donors with whom he prefers to spend his valuable time.
Cory,
Thanks, someone finally sees my point!
I think Messrs. Rhoden and Rounds' point is that they were facing more South Dakotans and listening to them and at least in Mr. Rhoden's case taking notes about their points doing what they were doing instead of going to some place on south central Pierre (not Ft. Pierre or Eagle Butte) where nobody can say if more than 5 people showed up.
I guess it will all come out in the votes at the end and we'll see who was right. Meaningless now.
I really hate to say this as a debate coach, but political "debates" of today are more or less hallow concepts. People don't focus on issues, offer ideas, and debate those ideas with contradictory ideas. Even more sad is that most people simply don't care about debates because they have already made up their minds or would rather watch something that doesn't require them to think.
"Clearly Mr. Rhoden has a the majority of Nelson supporters, perhaps a super-majority of 5 or 6, very worried."
Yeah, that's why every thread on DWC turns to moronic Stace bashing.
------------------------------------
grudznick:
...instead of going to some place on south central Pierre (not Ft. Pierre or Eagle Butte) where nobody can say if more than 5 people showed up.
Roger Cornelius:
Just for you grudz,
From their Facebook page on the conference and the South Dakota Indian Business Alliance website, there were 200 in attendance and also had online participation.
https://madvilletimes.com/2013/11/rounds-skips-fourth-november-debate-snubs-indians-in-own-backyard/#comments
--------------------------------------
Why are you lying grudznick? Roger already addressed your nonsense claim in another thread.
grudz,
There were 200 registered participants as well as online participation at the SDIBA conference in Pierre representing all reservations.
You are parroting TG's comments on another madeville post about the location and attendance as if that were relevant to their "no show".
Messrs. Rhoden and Rounds may well have had a larger listening audience than the conference, but who were they?
In all the excuses provided you and TG, neither has yet to say why they were not able to attend the conference and appeal to Native American voters.
I don't know what this TG fellow thinks. But thank you for answering my question of the other day at least to the extent that people registered. I bet dozens showed up, eh?
Mrs. S, why are you lying about me lying?
Why are you using Alinsky tactics, grudz? The place to spew obvious lies and inanities is the DWC - a.k.a. the Dakota Ministry of Truth.
I backed up my claim that your nonsense was already disproven in a previous thread. You have come to a different thread and spewed obvious lies for no other reason that I can think of other than to force reasonable, truthful human beings to go through the effort of logically disputing the same lies all over again.
grudz,
Take your socks and start counting, how many dozens are in 200?
Read TG's comments on Rounds Skips Fourth November Debate, Snubs Indians in Own Backyard, your wording and TG's comments are eerily similar. Why is that?
@"TG" I have personally heard Rhoden claim that he is a lifelong conservative Reagan Republican. With the outing of his voter registration record, it proves that claim was a bald faced lie. Now you are projecting another lie that Rhoden supposedly was a 21 year registered voting Democrat, voted for Jimmy Carter and then supposedly voted conservative Republican for 21 years as a registered Democrat?! One lie right after another.
You people are meanies to pick on me.
According to the West River Eagle the event had thirty attendees. That's definitely more than showed up to Rounds snooze-worthy Meet & Greets in Wall and Pierre. As for Rhoden's last Meet & Greet I've seen pictures for, it looked like four people and a walker attended.
And one of you is a liar.
grudz, Rhoden, TG, all the same person?
MJL maybe right about debates. I would add that current debates are watched more for who has the best "zinger" than they are for content
Debates? Don't debates have a format and questions that people answer in some organized fashion, typically moderated or judged by some neutral party?
Mr. H, you are purported to be an expert in debates. Is showing up at a Gordon Howie festival of insanity where the audience yells things a debate?
How about you draw down on votes and actions DD. That is something that needs no speculation. I've watched conservative, life members of the GOP lie out of both sides of their head and I've also seen some very conservative Democrats perform well. I'll take an honest person from either party if they will work to stop the fraud at all levels of both parties and give the government back to the people!
Mr. H is reputed as an expert in debates. I have found links evidencing it. I will accept his definition of debates without so much as a BAH.
grudznick, you brought up the fact that Roger answered your question the other day "at least to the extent that people registered." That told me that you were aware that the actual number of attendees was less than the number that registered. So I looked it up. About 30 actual attendees. But you knew that with your sarcastic comment about dozens showing up. And you knew when you said "nobody can say if more than 5 people showed up" that you were wrong, because a political operative like you knows these things.
Cory just said it wasn't a debate, grudznick.
Thanks, Mrs. S, for confirming that I was right that there weren't 200 people at this non-debate.
Mr. Rhoden probably made the right choice to skip that event. We'll see, I guess. Maybe Rounds made the wrong choice in not attending it, though.
Well, now that is all cleared up, back to the point.
Why won't Rhoden and Rounds meet with Native Americans?
Mr. Cornelius, I don't think we have determined that Mr. Rhoden won't or doesn't meet with any particular group, except for the group of a couple dozen that recently gathered in Ft. Pierre. I suspect there are many places one could find pictures of Messrs. Rhoden and Rounds meeting with people of all races.
Here's a picture and article my granddaughter googled up for me with Mr. Rounds sporting a star quilt.
http://www.lakotacountrytimes.com/news/2009-02-05/local_news/007.html
The fine young man (on the left) is named LaBradford Bordeaux Eagle Deer. He is an outstanding student, I have read.
Nobody can say if more than 7 octogenarians showed up to Larry Rhoden's last (one and only?) Meet & Greet.
http://dakotawarcollege.com/rhoden-in-huron-adds-aaron-pilcher-to-staff-to-handle-social-media-fundraising-general-media/#comments
"Mr. Rhoden probably made the right choice to skip that event. We'll see, I guess. Maybe Rounds made the wrong choice in not attending it, though."
I love your logical statements, Grudz. They're awesome.
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Dennis-Anderson/233882035
grudz, the conference was held in Pierre.
grudz, the conference was held in Pierre.
grudz, the conference was held in Pierre.
Now do you understand?
Yes. Pierre. I was incorrect where the 30 people attended the conference.
"Dennis Anderson, a Wall businessman with ownership interests in the Gold Dust gaming complex and the Holiday Inn Express on Deadwood's Historic Main Street, is one of the leader against the TIFD. Don Frankenfeld is a consultant hired by Anderson's opposing group to the TIFD "Save Historic Deadwood.""
http://www.bhpioneer.com/article_6fe4bc6d-17e5-5070-b266-72f209931afd.html
grudz,
Did Rhoden attend or not attend the SDIBA conference in PIERRE?
Boy grudz. If 2009 is the best you can do for Rounds that's pretty sad.
Les, I very much want to see our primary candidates lead a conversation about this scandal and the apparent impunity with which the GOP rules, and impunity that makes corruption all too tempting and easy. That conversation should take place in front of as many voters as possible, as often as possible. Rounds and Daugaard need to hit the road and answer questions. Nelson and Hubbel and anyone else who jumps in need to get off the Tea Party hobby horses about ObamaCare and guns and socialism and talk about the very real corruption (some might call it tyranny) happening right in front of us, right in our own state.
Mr. Cornelius, I am told that he did not. I can only presume he had another place he was previously booked where people, perhaps even many dozens, would have been equally as offput if he spurned them.
Stop acting like Mrs. Bree after her 8th grade dance didn't go well.
Amen Cory, shouldn't have much to do with party affiliation should it. Unless it's the big bro party affiliation. Some do get away with killing another though most pay a much higher price as we've seen many times in SD.
.
"Why won't Rhoden and Rounds meet with Native Americans?" Call em up and report back to us Roger. History shows a GOP candidate meeting with the tribe will get 8.06% of the vote and a GOP candidate not meeting with the tribe will get 8.06% of the vote.
Waziya wana u, Mr. les. Waziya wana u.
Bree, how did the 8th grade dance go? Well I hope. Was grudz one of the wall flowers?
As it stands, Rhoden and Rounds snubbed Native Americans, end of story.
Mr. Grudznick, you are told he did not by several press and blog reports. You cannot presume he had another place he was previously booked because there are no pictures of Rhoden attending any such event. If you have pictures of Rhoden addressing many dozens, please provide them. From what I have seen of Rhoden and Rounds' Meet & Greets, all they have managed to do since the beginning of the campaign is put a few small gatherings of senior citizens to sleep. If Rhoden had spurned his apparent base, they probably would have immediately forgotten such an event, since it was so recent and not committed to long term memory, and gone back to eating their prunes.
Les, interesting statistic, my guess is could actually be higher. You'd be surprised how conservative Native Americans can be.
In my old campaign days I always directed candidates into challenging venues, these are the people you need to convert and where time, money and energy needs to spent.
The candidate goes into safe venues later in the campaign to make sure the vote gets out and transportation arranged if necessary, after all, you know they will vote for you. Why spend your valuable time talking with people that support you?
http://apps.sd.gov/applications/st12odrs/files/02PG212.PDF
I'd like to pay every legislator $100 to do the Hokie Pokie the first day of session. Er, contribute without any expectations, I mean.
The statistic was from Little Eagle at a memorable time. There are higher and lower. I've known few American Indians who were not conservative unless they were like my liberal family who wishes to save the world with my money and yours so I've never understood the Democrat consistency when they've been forgotten by both parties.
He started out wanting nine million dollars and he is working for nine million dollars. The little private meetings is where the money is and he is working real hard for this. He is also forgetting that the voters are looking for more than a name they remember. But with Benda gate in the picture, he has no choice but to get out of the line of fire since he is an insurance agent and not a marine.
Roger C., that's useful campaign advice: go for the challenging venues to win new voters early, then go for the friendly venues for GOTV toward the end. That early stage would be fun: if I were running as a Dem, I'd love to drop by the a Wingnuts luncheon in Rapid, some Tea Party functions, maybe even the Family Heritage Alliance, if they'd have me. A Dem in that situation might not win a single vote, but it would be a chance to talk face to face with those folks, remind them that the Democrat in the race isn't some abstract tentacle of the evil Obama-Marxist cabal, but a real guy, a real neighbor, talking about real issues. In the current environment, such outreach to "challenging" audiences might be all the more important, as candidates all along the political spectrum should be rousing and educating every South Dakotan about the GOED/EB-5 corruption scandal and encouraging them to pressure their elected officials to do something about it well before the November election.
Democrats need to attack the nonsense to prevent the explosion of more nonsense and ignorance. If they pander to the nonsense, voters think they might as well vote for real Republicans and then we get a fresh dose of new nonsense and constant repetition of the old fallacies. Undoing nonsense in voter brains must start early in the campaigns
Agreed Cory. They may not get a single vote or even booed, but if a candidate can plant the seed of corruption by state Republicans it would be news worthy and can be followed up with a press release thereby allowing more exposure.
The premise is easy. The results of Democrats talking to Republicans cannot hurt. It might even be seen as courageous, a liberal Democrat taking on the tea baggers.
I wouldn't mind watching that.
Bree - I don't know if you saw my post asking you to email me about Bill #s. This is a start and I'll see what kind of an answer I can get and then an appropriate post to respond back on as my attendance on here is spotty.
I also posted this for some in question of Rhoden's alignment with Native Americans "Larry is good friends with the Indian Chief of 'all indigenous tribes' of the United States, David Beautiful Bald Eagle. David has spent many hours at Larry's kitchen table telling of his history and discussing issues concerning the Native Americans. Larry has no reason to run away from the Native Americans as he and David Bald Eagle have discussed first hand many of the issues facing our reservations." Does that excuse him from attending any and all forums with NA's? No, I'm sure not. However, I don't think it should be expected just because someone is invited, you MUST show up or you don't have time for them. I think someone questioned the 'all indigenous tribes' comment but that's what I quoted. I'll see if that is 100% accurate but nonetheless, the meetings, discussion and friendship part is accurate. I'm sure we all could learn more at any given time about the culture and issues.
I had to chuckle at the comment of Grudz, me and Rhoden being the same person. I have been trying to figure out who Grudznick was since about the time I started blogging! All I know for sure is he thinks Rhoden laughs alot and that Boz sure is pretty. And no, I'm not Rhoden. Cory, you have my permission to confirm that. I'm not tall, I'm not dark and I'm not handsome!
Les,
I've been asked some by some Republicans why the majority of Native Americans vote for Democrats.
In my opinion and not speaking for anybody else, the first reason is that when Republicans are in power, tribes receive less money, programs are cut or eliminated.
Indians have also found support from Democrats when it comes to civil and voting rights.
Republicans remind us that it was Lincoln who freed the slaves, fought Jim Crow laws, and helped Johnson usher in the Civil Rights Act. Somewhere in between the Civil Rights legislation and now, Republicans lost their way with minorities. Perhaps it was the white is right or another reason. Native Americans for the last few decades have been excluded from the Republican Party and have bee the object of a party shouting "socialism" at them. Coupled with an resentment of what Indians get from the government, there exist a sense of hatred from the Republican Party as has been manifested since President was elected. This obviously is not true of the many Republicans that support Native Americans and their causes.
A Republican friend recently asked "why do you support Democrats? They never did anything for you". My first response was, "what have Republicans do for you?
Considering these issues and a multitude of others, it comes down to this, which party has done the least damage to Indians?
And about you tax dollars, they aren't your dollars once you pay them into the government. You can't change how government money is spent, you don't write the checks, the reality is that all you have is the ability to complain about how government spends its money.
TG - I think Larry Rhoden should be able to publicly address his voting record on illegal immigration issues, since he's running for public office. I find the pattern of his votes protecting businesses from prosecution for knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens troubling to say the least. To stand in front of a crowd and say that a print out of his votes on bills is "inaccurate" is not an acceptable answer. Those are his votes, and they are a matter of record. By stating that his factual voting record has been somehow misrepresented to the public he is calling Stace Nelson a liar without evidence and in the face of clear evidence. That certainly makes me question Rhoden's honesty.
I don't care that Rhoden used to be a Democrat. I don't care if he used to be a flaming liberal. However, based on his voting record I'd say he's a Blue Dog convert. I can support Republicans who are more moderate than me. But I am very concerned about his voting record. I am especially concerned that he doesn't seem to think that the exploitation of illegal aliens is an unqualified evil.
There is an explanation for Rhoden's voting record that doesn't involve true support for illegal immigration. I am aware that Rhoden likes to kill the bills of people he finds annoying and political enemies, like the NAGR (Lautenschlagers). I won't dispute that the Lautenschlagers have annoyed people. However, killing every bill they support is not evidence to me of a reasonable politician who can work to pass good Republican bills without personal ego coming first. Maybe a similar situation occurred between Nelson and Rhoden and Rhoden decided to start killing good Republican bills while on another ego trip. Whether Rhoden truly supports the hiring of illegals by businesses or he just decided Nelson needed to be taught a lesson in pecking order is irrelevant to me. Neither storyline paints a picture of someone who should be entrusted with the task of representing South Dakotans in federal office.
I am not impressed that you want to address Rhoden's voting record in private but you could sign up on my husband's blog with an email.
Bree - I didn't want to necessarily do it in private; it's just that I don't come on here often enough to respond back and forth and there are questions I have but I think today you've given me enough information to get you a response.
The comments I've made about the voting records are a) Taxes & Fees - I don't see any taxes on there that impact me as a SD resident, only visitor and gambling casinos (five of them); the rest are Fees. I'm OK with not being taxed every time a Fee is required for a particular profession/consumer if I'm not one of them. They work quite well where the people using are the ones to pay but they don't have to unless they choose to (in general, that is my understanding). I know Rounds put that one out originally but it was to show a comparison but then it was used as if it was a bad thing and some buy it.
b) Term limits - putting HJRs on it for example, are manipulative and lead an uneducated reader who doesn't know that to a false conclusion. I believe that was intentional.
Those are the kinds of things that are glaring. However, related to your illegal immigration concerns, I will see what I can find out. I didn't know your husband had a blog. Which one is it?
I am glad to hear you're not approving of ANYONE using this tactic "liar without evidence and in the face of clear evidence". I think you'll find out more on that topic.
I'll try to remember to come back on and look for a comment from you on which blog I can go to for an email if I still need it. Thanks!
republicanterritory.com
And Cory - I couldn't agree more with this statement "...chance to talk face to face with those folks, remind them that the Democrat in the race isn't some abstract tentacle of the evil Obama-Marxist cabal, but a real guy, a real neighbor, talking about real issues. "
Got it. I had a delayed thought that I came back to put on. I was NOT calling anyone here an uneducated reader and "uninformed" (on bills and such) would have probably been a better term for me to use.
The reason that Rhoden's past as a Democrat gets brought up as far as I can tell is in response to an alleged public claim by Rhoden that he was a life long Reagan Republican. More than a few people have stated that Rhoden told them he was a life long Republican.
Considering the support that Stace gets from Democrats its clear to me that this dispute is over an accusation that Rhoden has been dishonest to the public and not due to any dislike for Democrats. I've heard Stace say many times in his speeches that the government's problems cannot be blamed on the Democrats, that Republicans have been just as guilty in growing the government and related corruption.
@TG Rhoden claims he strongly supports term limits, yet he has repeatedly supported legislative efforts to put on the ballots measures to REPEAL them and helped kill other measures that sought to put on the ballots measures to close the loop holes. There is no misrepresentation of his record. He has also told constituents repeatedly that he does NOT support term limits. Just as he converted in an election year to the GOP to get elected in a heavy Republican district, he now seeks to jump the fence again and embrace a conservative idea by lying. If Rhoden truly strongly supports term limits? He wouldn't support efforts to repeal them.
Please share with us the measures that Larry Rhoden has brought in the SD legislature which shows that he strongly supports term limits. There are none, but there are numerous records showing that his claims of strongly supporting term limits is a lie.
I haven't discussed term limits with him but MY position is that term limits in SD and DC are two different stories. I guess I haven't paid attention to whether he called out the difference or if that's why the difference. But here's why I think this. SD politicians barely get paid as it is and there are no medical or retirement benefits that I know of. I'm pretty sure if they're in it here at the state level, they're probably in it for the right reasons (yes, I know you can get lifers here too). DC positions are basically a cash cow where you get a huge salary, medical (like none of the rest of us get) and retirement benefits. That is where I feel you can get entrenched politicians who just don't want to leave for the wrong reasons. Personally, I'd term limit almost every one of them this very day if I could because they can't see beyond their own noses and they're not making good decisions. You have to be able to differentiate between what's good for a state and what's good for a nation and they're not always the same.
Again, with some like DD, a reminder is warranted, I'm speaking for myself and only myself. But curious, do you disagree and if so, why? Maybe NY needs state term limits or CA but not sure if SD does. Have we had a Strom Thurmand scenario? Or maybe this post is not the right one for that type of discussion... We need an open blog spot!
Good night, people! Rhoden is small potatoes here. Rounds is the one with GOED, EB-5, and a cardboard cut-out hanging around his neck. Rounds is the Nine Million Dollar Man trying to buy the election. Rounds is the dude with a legacy of failure. Can we concentrate fire where it's needed?
I've got an ad coming to mind. Cardboard Mike traveling the state, talking to voters and hearing concerns of everyday South Dakotans. Cardboard Mike at debates with the other candidates. In between scenes cut to Mike Rounds sipping champagne and laughing with lobbyists at fancy parties in DC.
Cardboard Mike could be like the traveling Gnome.
It is entirely possible that cardboard Mike could be the next flat Stanley. Just think about all that could be done with it...copyright anyone?
Brilliant! Bosworth, Rhoden, and Nelson should all chip in to put that ad together. We could get the footage in a day, get the final clip (one minute, tops!) up on YouTube and going viral by the end of this week. Last clip: Bosworth, Rhoden, and Nelson, shoulder to shoulder, saying vote for whomever you like, just don't vote for Cardboard Mike! Then cut to Cardboard Mike, who tips forward and falls, revealing "Paid for by Bosworth, Rhoden, and Nelson for Senate" placard in front of Mount Rushmore.
We have one thing to thank Dr. Bosworth for.
We could have a Town Hall with Cardboard Mike. No matter what the question from the audience would be, Cardboard Mike would answer "It's simply to early in the primary for a discussion on this topic. Such questions are traditionally not addressed by a candidate until at least April."
Weiland too. He's really been traveling the state meeting people. Does anyone ever do bipartisan ads during a primary?
you want rick to pander to your relatives' hatred of the earth, bree?
maybe weiland should issue a communiqué stating all women should give their property holdings to their husbands and/or boyfriends.
You need to smoke something Larry. And when you get a chance take a tour of China. They ignore the dead bodies floating in the water there. Water filled with slime.
Are women required to give their property holdings away to men in the U.S.? If not, I'm sure its in the Republican platform. Otherwise you wouldn't be upset about a problem that doesn't exist.
Come on Larry. A funny ad about Cardboard Mike doesn't have anything to do with "Earth Hatred."
And if you recognize a feminine principle in the universe, do you think it ends in the dirt beneath your feet Larry?
Rounds is a sideshow, Bree: Stace should have run for governor where his message would have traction instead of being mired in a big loud guy/short corrupt guy dialogue.
below zero readings forecast for you poor schlubs: serves you right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k4fy7GsSSE&sns=em
Flat Stanley theme song..we could change it to Cardboard Mike
It is imperative that Mike Rounds not make it to federal office. We cannot allow this disease to spread any further.
@CAH Rhoden is a tool, that is being used to help Rounds. He is the worst type of politician, one that will change parties, say anything, to fool the voters. The only thing he stands for, is his own political aspirations. If his lies about his Democratic past, and his record, are known to the public? They will drop support of him like a hot potato.
@TG you adamantly claim that Rhoden's record is being misrepresented and that it is dishonest to reflect legislative measures that he supported, that sought to repeal both SD's state and federal term limits. Now you waffle and equivocate, just like Rhoden does. Again, how does Rhoden strongly support term limits when he has voted repeatedly for measures seeking to REPEAL both SD's federal and state term limits and how is his official voting record misrepresented by that official factual voting record being shown to the public?
just proves that dilution is not always the solution to pollution.
DD - here's a tissue. Time will tell. And how did he lie about himself when he's the one who told a stranger he used to be a D and thought nothing of it because he was telling the truth that he voted for Carter and Carter only? You don't make any sense plus way more have indicated many times over they don't care about his D or R twenty years ago so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Oh, right. I do. Because it's important to you then you obviously think it should be important to everyone.
And another thing "DD" - I am not Rhoden, his wife and I don't bear the name Rhoden so quit acting like Veteran's Day like you think you're talking directly to him. I much prefer people like Bree and even Roger who clearly don't agree with me but are civil in their responses.
Term limits are the least of our problems. Although I support them and think they make sense, term limits have nothing to do with conservatism or the Constitution.
"TG" better keep that tissue for your candidate, you people are the ones whining he is being attacked with his "misrepresented" record. I see you dodging your own comments thrown back at you. What happened to all the bluster and sputtering that Rhoden is a victim and his record misrepresented? You are obviously close to Rhoden, you commented on here before that Rhoden was going to dodge the RC campaign and why, and that came to pass. How have I not been civil? Because I confront your BS with facts?
Since your claims he strongly supports term limits has been shown to be hollow, explain how Rhoden supporting 57 of 61 tax and fee increases passed in 13 years is an example of him fighting tax increases.
Rhoden got caught admitting to voting for Carter, now he lies and claims Carter was the only Democrat he voted for as a 21 year registered Democrat. If Rhoden runs on his actual record? He won't even get the signatures to get on the ballot.
Bree - I agree term limits is a waste of breath in the grand scheme of things. Tell that to DD...
DD - way too many lies up above for me to even partake. I've had a particularly good day and I am not going to dwell on your negativity. I think people are starting to see anyway. The biggest for example above though?? I said he didn't know about it and that he already had something. I never used the word 'dodge'. This is just one example of how you go awry. I don't lie and I despise people who do especially with my own words which I know are not lies to begin with. Sorry dude; tissue back to you.
I don't think we have any proof of who Rhoden voted for when he was a Democrat.
I wonder when the next poll is going to come out for the Senate race.
@Bree Term Limits have become a conservative cause as people are realizing that the worst threat to conservatism are these dishonest career politicians. Rhoden's schtick is telling people about his integrity, that he is a lifelong conservative, etc., etc. So his lying about supporting term limits, illegal immigration, fighting taxes, etc, goes to the heart of who he is, a typical say anything to get elected politician.
@"TG" keep your white surrender flag with all the BS on it, as people figure out Rhoden? You'll need it to wipe away his tears. You prove my point in your hurried retreat. No lies at this end, tell us one more time.. How does Rhoden strongly support term limits with a long record of seeking to repeal them? Wipe the corner of your mouth, big chunk of crow sticking out..
@Bree that is what Rhoden is counting on, that he can lie and people will give him the benefit of the doubt. How many conservative Republicans would vote for Rhoden if they knew he supported liberal pro-choice Democrats for 21 years? Very few. There is only one reason why Rhoden was a registered voting Democrat in a district with 2-1 (R) registration, for 21 years.. He lied about strongly supporting term limits, because he didn't think anyone would look at his record. He lies now because he thinks it cannot be proven he is lying.
Disgusted, term limits are the least important issue out of Rhoden's voting record compared to taxes and illegal immigration, so I wonder why you are raving about them after Cory asked us to lay off Rhoden and concentrate on Rounds.
Certainly Rhoden's change of political face in direct contradiction with his voting record pales in comparison to Rounds history of corruption and scandal.
Just tired of his campaign crying victim to his own official voting record AND his lectures on integrity when he has none.
Rhoden and Rounds have near identical records, but Rhoden is trying to set himself up as a conservative in order to steal support from Nelson who is an actual conservative. Make no mistake, Rhoden in the race helps Rounds. That is why Powers fluffs up Rhoden and Bosworth.
Also, as a Constitutionalist Republican I don't agree with the Constitution Party's claim that the United States was founded on the Bible. Founded by God-believing people in the sight of the Creator, the majority of them Christian, certainly. Founded as an exclusively Christian nation, absolutely not. If the Founding Fathers had wanted to put the word "God" in the Constitution they would have. They chose not too.
The Constitution Party is a divisive party with theocratic roots in my opinion.
While you 3 Stace supporters keep attacking the honorable Mr. Rhoden, Mr. Rounds prances merrily through the tulips waving fists of goodies and feeding the squirrels and other cute forest creatures.
I'm just sayin...stop attacking the #2 guy in the race and go for the big dog.
Drat: I must grudgingly agree with Grudz. If Rhoden is a tool, then attack the toolmaster. Attacking Rounds will either expose or marginalize the tool.
When will Rhoden and Nelson, maybe even Bosworth come out and condemn Daugaard and Rounds on EB-5? What are they waiting for? Are they afraid of making all Republicans look bad?
There are ample facts, not speculation, available to knockout Rounds before the fight.
When will a Republican leader lead?
@CAH isn't that how Rounds got in there to begin with? Do you really want such a dishonest tool as Rhoden sneaking in on his dishonesty? You obviously see the need to point out how dishonest Bosworth is, Rhoden is even more so.
Bosworth's dishonesty is of an entirely different degree and type than Rhoden's campaign-trail truth-bending. Bosworth's dishonesty is criminal and newsworthy independent of her political aspirations.
Rhoden won't sneak into the that Senate seat. He has no chance of winning unless Rounds gets out.